The business model prism: managing andinnovating business models of arts andcultural organisationsGiovanni Schiuma* and Antonio Lerro
* Correspondence:[email protected];[email protected] of Mathematics,Computer Sciences and Economics,University of Basilicata, Vialedell’Ateneo Lucano, Potenza, Italy
Abstract
Purpose: This paper introduces and analyses the Business Model Prism (BMP) for thearts and cultural organizations as multidimensional framework to map the “as is”structure and the logic of their business model as well as to drive the design ofinnovation initiatives, i.e. the “as should be” business model. The framework can beused both for descriptive and normative purposes and comprises seven facetsorganized and represented with a tri-dimensional prism which defines the keybusiness components of arts and cultural organisations.
Design/methodology/approach: The research design and methodology are basedon a literature review on the themes of business models and business modelsinnovation with a focus on the characteristics and features of the arts and culturalorganisations. This paper has a conceptual nature and it is based on a literaturereview. This includes also a desk research investigation of some key examples of artsand cultural organisations that have adopted innovations to transform the way howthey work and deliver value to audience. The development of the novel frameworkbuilds the foundation for applying operatively and testing it in arts and culturalorganisations and supports them in mapping and transforming effectively theirbusiness model.
Originality/value: Traditionally great attention the studies on business modelinnovation have been focused on businesses and public organisations, whilerather limited attention has been paid to the investigation of how arts andcultural organisations can develop and manage their business models. Most ofthe attempts in this direction are aimed at contextualising, in the cultural sector,frameworks that have been devised for the business sector. Although acknowledgingthe relevance of these contributions, they present weaknesses related to the capacityto take into account the specific characteristics and features of the arts and culturalorganisations. The originality and the value of this paper resides, then, in the attempt tofill this gap, providing a new and industry-specific framework able to effectively supportthe management and the innovation of the business models in the arts and culturalsector.(Continued on next page)
Practical implications: The proposed framework can support arts and culturalmanagers to understand the key dimensions characterising the business model oftheir organizations. In addition, it provides guidelines to map and design managerialinitiatives to develop and transform the business model of arts and culturalorganisations.
Keywords: Business model innovation, Arts and cultural Organisations, The businessmodel prism, Arts and cultural management
IntroductionArts, creative and culture-driven industries and organizations are widely recognized as
new key-players in the current scenarios for their economic and social role as well as
for the relevant potential to lead further development and innovation in other indus-
tries (Schiuma, 2011; United Nations, 2008). However, the political and socio-economic
changes of the last years have determined that public support for arts and culture have
generally decreased dramatically with reduction of subsidies towards the arts and
cultural organizations (Kea, 2006). This has increasingly encouraged arts and cul-
tural institutions to explore new ways of managing and funding their artistic and
cultural programs (Nesta, 2014).
In this scenario, the academic and management debate has largely argued about the
relevance to enhance the cultural sector organisations’ innovation capacity so that they
can be more economic sustainable, they can become less dependent from public fund-
ing as well as capable of generating more significant and accountable impact for society
at large (Arts Council England, 2011). In particular, arts and cultural organisations are
increasingly called to explore the elaboration and the adoption of new business models
(Munoz-Seca, 2011; Munoz-Seca and Riverola, 2010; TEH, 2015).
The business model innovation is actually one the main interests for most industrial
sectors and organisations. However, arts and cultural organisations present some pecu-
liarities that make the analysis of business model management and innovation very
idiosyncratic. The specific characteristics of the sector makes very problematic the sim-
ple application of those framework that have been devised and applied traditionally in
the business and public organisations. Despite a great “fad” in the current debate about
how to analyse, shape and renew the orientations and the ways of doing in the arts and
cultural sector, there is a general lack of data around this sector and specifically about
the characteristics distinguishing the business models of the arts and cultural organisa-
tions as well as of the practices and the results of business model innovation. This is
further complicated by the evidences that even within the arts and cultural organisa-
tions it is possible to find great differences in missions and aims, orientation to the
market and to the entrepreneurial approach, including ways of managing activities, re-
sources, and stakeholders’ relationships (Hume et al., 2006; Munoz-Seca and Riverola,
2008; TEH, 2015).
In order to fill these gaps, this paper proposes a new framework aimed to support a
better management and innovation of the business models of arts and cultural organi-
sations. In particular, the Business Model Prism (BMP) is introduced and discussed as a
multidimensional model to be used both for descriptive and normative purposes. It
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 2 of 13
allows to analyse the “as is” structure and the logic of the business model of the arts
and cultural organisation as well as to drive the design of innovation initiatives, i.e. the
“as should be” business model. The framework comprises seven facets organized graph-
ically around a tri-dimensional prism.
The paper is organized as follows. The second section briefly introduces the notions
of business model and business model innovation. The third section discusses the
strategic relevance of the business model management and innovation for the arts
and cultural organisations. The fourth section introduces the Business Model Prism
as a tri-dimensional model aimed to support both the analysis and the transformation
of the business models of the arts and cultural organizations and presents the main
managerial issues and questions it tries to answer.
BackgroundThe arts, creative and cultural sector, with their relationships to be activated with the
social entrepreneurship, the tourism and hospitality industries, and even with the
agri-food business, are increasingly acknowledged as a new engine for stimulating
and enhancing growth with an impact on well-being, new employment and society at
large (United Nations, 2008).
Despite the relevance that arts and cultural organisations can potentially play to
sustain local and global wealth creation dynamics, currently they are facing critical
challenges for their growth and even survival. In particular, as a result of political and
economic changes of the last decade, the allocation of financial resources, public supports
and funds for arts and culture have decreased consistently. These radical changes are
forcing arts and cultural organisations to identify new ways of managing and funding
their activities (Cunningham, 2002; TEH, 2015; Thorsby, 2008; IDEA Consult, 2013).
In this scenario, a relevant theme in the scientific and practitioners’ debate is the
challenge of enhancing the innovation capacity of arts and cultural organisations in
order to improve their sustainability and ability to generate impact for society. For
this reason a set of priorities have been identified and highlighted for the arts and cul-
tural organisations, such as the development of new mindsets (Zomerdijk and Voss,
2010), the search of new funding and financing models (Nesta, 2014), the acquisition
of managerial and business skills (Helmig et al., 2004), the understanding about how
to exploit the digital transformation (Nesta, 2015), the creation of new forms of part-
nership (Ostrower, 2004; Schiuma, 2011; Schiuma and Lerro, 2013; Smagina and
Lindemanis, 2012), the adoption of strategies for audience development (Bollo, 2013).
The above priorities point out that arts and cultural organisations need to undertake
a development journey towards the capacity of managing and innovating the ways how
they operate, interact with stakeholders, define their value objectives, acquire and de-
ploy resources, and support economically their artistic, cultural and social programmes.
This means to understand how to manage and innovate their business models.
The notion of business model (BM)
A working definition of Business Model (BM) is: “the synthesis and the integration of
all the strategic, organizational, managerial and economic components that any organi-
zations – explicitly or implicitly - design, implement, manage, assess and eventually
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 3 of 13
change and radically transform to guarantee uniqueness, performance, value creation
and sustainability” (Magretta, 2002; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Spieth et al., 2014;
Teece, 2010; Timmers, 1998).
Historically, the BM notion has emerged in the late 1990s, with a particular attention
to the Information and Communication Technologies and e-business companies
(Afuah and Tucci, 2003; Wirtz, 2001). Since then, the notion has attracted a growing
interest both in scientific and managerial debate (Casadesus-Masanell and Zhou, 2013;
Enev and Liao, 2014; Frankenberger et al., 2013; Girotra and Netessine, 2014; Zott et
al., 2011). Currently, it is possible to state that, from a scientific point of view, the no-
tion of BM has become a mainstream topic in different research streams (Wirtz et al.,
2016). And in the extant academic literature, the concept of business model has been con-
ceptualized in accordance with different focuses and perspectives (Amit and Zott, 2001;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Magretta, 2002; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart,
2007). Wirtz et al. (2016) group them according to four main foci: innovation; change and
evolution; performance and controlling; and design. Moreover, Wirtz (2010) identifies
three basic theoretical approaches to the interpretation of BM as follows: the Information
Technology-oriented view (Afuah and Tucci, 2003; Hedman and Kallig, 2002; Timmers,
1998; Wirtz, 2000); the Organization-theory oriented standpoint (Linder and Cantrell,
2000; Tikkanen et al., 2005) and the Strategy-oriented approach (Magretta, 2002; Teece,
2010; Zott and Amit, 2008).
A number of definitions about business model have been provided in the academic
literature. Among them, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, p. 14) state that “a business
model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and capture
value”. Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu (2013, p. 465) argue that “the business model can
be defined as a unit of analysis to describe how the business of a firm works”. Zott et al.
(2011, p. 1020) sustain that business model describes “a logic story explaining who the
firms’ customers are, what they value, and how firms will make money providing them
that value”. Other scholars, such as George and Bock (2011), Downing, (2005), Markides,
(2013), Cohen and Winn (2007), instead, provide a different perspective. In particular, on
the basis of a review of prior research, they provide an interpretation of the business
model according to an entrepreneurial lens. So, they see business model as a form of
entrepreneurial opportunity creation, implicitly or explicitly initiated by market
imperfections.
However, George and Bock (2011, p. 83) underline that “while the term “business
model” has gained widespread use in the practice community, the academic literature
on this topic is fragmented and confounded by inconsistent definitions and construct
boundaries”. Moreover, the studies on business model have not yet reached a common
opinion about which components exactly build up a business model (Spieth et al.,
2014). It is revealed a gap to clearly distinguish the business model from other man-
agerial constructs such as, for example, strategy, organizational design, revenue models,
and operations management (DaSilva and Trkman, 2014).
The notion of business model innovation (BMI)
The analysis of a business model is aimed at providing managers with an understanding
of the key components characterising the working mechanisms and the value creation
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 4 of 13
dynamics of an organisation, in order to propose adjustments, improvements or trans-
formations. The definition of a new business model or the transformation of an existing
one denote a process of business model innovation.
To define the notion of business model innovation, it seems relevant to begin with
the contribution provided by Wirtz (2011, p. 72) who states that “BM management con-
stitutes an instrument for the control of a company and comprises all target-oriented
activities within the scope of design, implementation, modification and adaptation as
well as the control of a business model in order to realize the overriding goal of genera-
ting and securing competitive advantage.” (….) It “consists essentially in five macro-
processes: the design of the business model, the implementation of the BM, the operation
of the BM, the adaptation and the modification of the BM and finally the controlling of
the BM”. This view highlights that while business model management is traditionally
concerned with firm-level value creation and capture, Business Model Innovation
(BMI) poses in addition questions about novelty in customer value proposition and
about the reframe and structural reconfiguration of firms (Schneider and Spieth, 2013).
Consistently, the management literature has developed alternative interpretations of
business model innovation such as: “the discovery of a fundamentally different business
model in an existing business” (Markides, 2006, p. 20) or as “the search for new business
logics of the firm and new ways to create and capture value for its stakeholders”
(Casadesus-Masanell and Zhu, 2013, p. 464).
In fact, innovation is incorporated into a business model when two or more of its ele-
ments are reinvented. This can result in delivering value in a new way, to go beyond
single-function strategies and to change use of technologies (Frankenberger et al.,
2013). Accordingly, it is important to distinguish business model innovation from prod-
uct, service or technological innovation (Baden-Fuller and Haefliger, 2013). Managers
that confuse the latter for the former risk underestimating the requirements for a suc-
cessful transformation of a business model. The main scope of the business model
innovation is to identify approaches and methodologies to support change management
as well as daily practices to better deliver sustainable performance. Therefore, business
model innovation goes beyond product and/or process innovation and continuous
business performance improvement, and aims to understand how to transform the
way organisations operate and create value (Enev and Liao, 2014).
Business model innovation is nowadays considered particularly valuable as a way
to face instability. Indeed, it can provide companies a way to break out of intense
competition. Through business model innovation companies can define new routes
for sustainability and competitiveness. This means that organisations by analysing,
managing and innovating business model can define their role and capacity for wealth
creation and then identify the nature and scope of their value creation dynamics.
The role of business model innovation for the arts and cultural organizationsMultinationals and relevant corporations operating in the manufacturing or in the e-
business context have been traditionally the object of investigation of the studies about
the business models. In contrast, there was a notable lack of attention to the practices
of small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, there is still a significant missing
of attention towards the organisations operating in the arts, creative and cultural indus-
tries (Munoz-Seca, 2011).
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 5 of 13
However, in the recent years, there has been a growing attention to the arts, creative
and cultural sector. Different reasons contributed to this growing interest. They can be
divided into two main categories: on the one hand, arts and cultural organisations are
challenged to understand how they can achieve financial viability, without compromis-
ing their mission and/or not-for-profit values. On the other hand, the progressive evo-
lution of the political, economic and socio-cultural scenarios put the arts and cultural
organisations as players of cultural activities as well as providers of social innovation, of
cultural and creative services, and catalysts for change for organisations operating in
other traditional sectors (TEH, 2015; Schiuma & Lerro, 2014).
Although business modelling is recognized as being fundamental to arts, creative
and cultural organisations’ success, the approaches, the techniques and the tools for elab-
orating, implementing and managing specific and tailor-made business models in arts and
cultural sector are still crude and often inconsistent (Hume et al., 2006; Munoz-Seca,
2011; Munoz-Seca and Riverola, 2010, 2008; Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010).
One of the main obstacles to business model innovation in the cultural sector is the
lack and/or misunderstanding of the language used in the sector. Indeed, many non-
profits, government agencies, social enterprises, NGOs and cultural and arts organisa-
tions consistently proclaim that they are not businesses, and therefore business rules do
not apply to them and accordingly they state that they do not really have a “business
model”. But, how underlined by Saul Kaplan (2011, p. 2) in his HBR article ‘Business
Models Aren’t Just for Business’: “if an organisation has a viable way to create, deliver,
and capture value, it has a business model. It does not matter whether an organization
is in the public or private sector. It does not matter if it is a non-profit or a for-profit
enterprise. All organisations have a business model. Non-profit corporations may not be
providing a financial return to investors or owners, but they still capture value to
finance activities with contributions, grants, and service revenue. Social enterprises may
be mission-driven, focused on delivering social impact versus a financial return on in-
vestment, but they still need a sustainable model to scale. (….). The idea that business
models are just for business is just wrong. Any organisation that wants to be relevant, to
deliver value at scale, and to sustain itself must clearly articulate and evolve its business
model. (…). It may be, however, that the model is implicit rather than explicit”.
Nowadays, an increasing number of creative, cultural and arts organisations are rec-
ognizing the importance to better understand manage and change their business model
in order to make their value creation capacity more sustainable and impactful. The
relevance of understanding and managing business models is recognized as one of the
main challenges facing creative, cultural and arts organisations. In particular, great at-
tention is paid on the identification of how to renew their capacity of existing working
mechanisms as well as to enable them to effectively use and exploit technologies sup-
porting digitalization processes. Cultural organisations are challenged to develop a
more sustainable strategic and operational audience development, financial viability,
resource and operations management, with the aim to enhance their value creation
capacity as cultural agents in society.
This new strategic and operative perspectives need to be effectively understood and
integrated with the current mindset of the arts and cultural organisations, considering
that they are generally reluctant to consider themselves as business organisations or
as organisations doing some form of business; and instead they see themselves as
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 6 of 13
organisations primarily focused on the social issues. Accordingly, particular relevant
are the insights provided by Ingrid Burkett in her publication “Using the Business
Model Canvas for Social Enterprise Design (available at: https://mbs.edu.getmedia/
Adams, 2001), the Business Model CANVAS (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), the
Business Model Cube (Lindgren and Rasmussen, 2012), the Lean Canvas (Maurya,
2015), the Business Model Innovation Matrix (Girotra and Netessine, 2013, 2014).
The analysis of the research constructs gained by the systematic literature review
based on key-words and strings and of the different strategic and managerial frame-
works has been then integrated with the results of a specific desk-research on a se-
lected and relevant sample of world-wide arts and cultural organisations. This has been
further integrated by the main insights collected from direct contacts and interviews
with a selected sample of European arts and cultural organisations.
Research insights
The results of the investigation have provided the informative base for proposing a
novel framework to interpret the business model of arts and cultural organisations. The
Business Model Prism (BMP) is, then, proposed as a multidimensional framework to be
used both for descriptive and normative purposes to understand and transform the
business models of the arts and cultural organisations. It is presented as a tri-
dimensional prism comprising seven facets (Fig. 1). The top and bottom facets of the
prim denote the Social and Cultural Value & Impact, and the Funding and Financial
Resilience, respectively. The other five facets of the prism correspond to the other key
dimensions characterizing a business model of the arts and cultural organisations:
Stakeholders, Strategies, Processes, Organizational Resources, and Partnerships.
Fig. 1 The Business Model Prism for ACOs
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 8 of 13
The Business Model Prism can support the identification and the mapping of the
peculiarities of the business models of the arts and cultural organisations. It takes into
account the specific features of the value creation focus and the operation mechanisms
of such organisations. It allows to analyse the “as is” structure and logic of an arts
and cultural organisation business model as well as to drive the design of innovation
initiatives, i.e. the “as should be” business model. The seven distinct but inter-linked
perspectives provide an ideal lens to understand the business model of an arts and
cultural organization starting from addressing the following key questions:
� Social and Cultural Value & Impact – Why do we exist? What impact do we want
to have? Which values do we want to propose and offer? What are our mission and
vision?
� Stakeholders – Who are our key-stakeholders? What are their wants, needs,
expectations and dreams?
� Strategies – What are we doing to satisfy our stakeholders and deliver value for
them? What are the main products and services we are doing? What is our legal
structure? How is currently our organizational structure?
� Processes – What are our existing processes? How do we manage our projects and
programmes? What are the characteristics of our productions? How do we generate
and sustain demand? How do we do Research & Development (R&D)?
� Organizational Resources – What resources do we need to put in place, exploit and
enhance to operate our processes?
� Partnerships – What partnerships do we need to build and enhance to implement
our strategy and guarantee social and cultural values and impact?
� Funding and Financial Resilience – What are our current costs and incomes? What
is our financial status?
The above key questions define the main issues to be addressed and managed to
supporting the development of the fundamental theoretical pillars distinguishing the
business model of an arts/culture organisation and provide a first step to understand
the hypothesis grounding the “how”, “why”, “what” and “how much” of the working
mechanisms, mission and vision of the investigated organisation. The above questions
are then cascaded down for each perspective of the prism exploring further in detail the
sub-dimensions components of the prism. Figure 2 illustrates the further subcomponents
of the Business Model Prism.
The Business Model Prism reflects and applies a set of internal working mechanisms:
the basic assumption of the business model prism application is that those arts and
cultural organisations aiming to be sustainable and impactful in the long term must
have a clear picture of their value creation dynamics. For this reason, they need,
firstly, clearly define what value and impact they are going to deliver and for who,
and consequently they have to define mission, visions and strategies. The key stakeholders
have to be identified, and, in relation to them, the value propositions have to be defined.
Then, the analysis of the processes allows clarifying the activities that have to be put in
place in order to achieve the targeted strategic objectives for value creation. This has to be
complemented with an understanding of the organisational resources available and
needed. The key partners have to be identified and the relevance of the relational capital
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 9 of 13
connected to such partnerships has to be defined. Finally, the business model analysis in-
volves an understanding of the funding and financial resilience representing the economic
and financial viability of the organisation. Figure 3 illustrates the stages through which to
implement the framework in order to analyse a business model.
ConclusionsThe debate in policy, scientific and managerial circles have recently started to consider
arts and cultural organisations as potential and relevant players in the paths of
Fig. 2 The Business Model Prism and related sub-components
Fig. 3 Implementing the Business Model Prism
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 10 of 13
development, both at industrial and societal level. For this reason, it is of great rele-
vance to understand how the arts and cultural organisations can manage and innovate
their business models towards the capacity of shaping strategies and operations that
can make them more sustainable and impactful.
The traditional models and tools devised to support public and private organisations
to analyse and develop their business models, even if provide useful insights for the cul-
tural sector, present limitations when applied to the arts and cultural organisations due
to the specific characteristics of those organisations. In order to effectively balance the
tension between the social and cultural values and the commercial values, the arts and
cultural organisations need to design and apply business models, also in an implicit
form, capable to identify and address their specific value propositions, resources
requirements, activities delivering and economic and financial structures.
In order to fill the gap in the literature a novel framework is proposed: the Business
Model Prism aims to support the mapping of a current business model as well to
inspire and drive its transformation.
Future development of the research reside both at theoretical and empirical level.
From conceptual point of view the hypothesis at the basis of the model need to be
further developed in order to improve the granularity level of the different framework’s
dimensions. From empirical standpoint the model need to be tested into real cases both
by action research projects and by developing surveys aimed at identifying the key traits
of business model innovations of the arts and cultural organisations.
AcknowledgementsNot applicable
FundingThis paper collects and presents some insights of the research develop alongside the project “Creative Lenses” –Cooperation Agreement “Creative Lenses” – Creative Europe 2014, Cultural Sub Programme, European CooperationProject – Cat. 2 Large managed by EACEA – Agreement number: 2015–1141/001–002.
Authors’ contributionsThe individual contributions of authors to the manuscript: GS: The role of business model innovation for the arts andcultural organizations and The Business Model Prism sections. AL: Introduction, Background and Conclusions sections.Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 14 July 2017 Accepted: 10 August 2017
ReferencesAfuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2003). A model of the internet as creative destroyer. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 50(4), 395–402.Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.Arts Council England (2011) Business Models in the Visual Arts (author: S.J. Royce). UK: Arts Council England publication.
ISBN: 978-0-7287-1499-1.Baden-Fuller, C., & Haefliger, S. (2013). Business models and technological innovation. Long Range Planning, 46, 419–426.Bollo, A. (2013). 50 sfumature di pubblico e la sfida dell’audience development. Torino: Fondazione Fitzcarraldo.Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J.E. (2007). Competing through business models. IESE Business School Working paper
No. 713.Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-
based business models. Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 464–482.Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. (2002). The role of business model in capturing value from innovation. Evidence
from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 11 of 13
Cohen, B. & Winn, M.I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 22(2), pp. 29–49.
Cunningham, S. (2002). From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry and policy implications. Media InternationalAustralia incorporating Culture and Policy, 102(1), 54–65.
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range Planning, 47, 379–389.Downing, S. (2005). The Social Construction of Entrepreneurship: Narrative and Dramatic Processes in the Coproduction
of Organizations and Identities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), pp. 185–204.Enev, V. and Liao, W.C. (2014) Business model innovation and factors influencing business model innovation, Master
Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Department of Business Administration. Lund: Lund University Libraries.Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I-framework of business model innovation: A
structured view on process phases and challenges. International Journal of Product Development, 18(3–4), 249–273.George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 83–111.Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2013). Om forum-business model innovation for sustainability. Manufacturing & Service
Operations Management, 15(4), 537–544.Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2014). Four paths to business model innovation. Harvard Business Review, 92(7), 96–103.Hedman, J., & Kalling, T. (2002). IT and business models. Malmö: Liber/Abstrakt.Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in management of nonprofit organizations: A research overview.
Volunteers: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15, 101–116.Hume, M., Sullivan Mort, G., Liesch, P. W., & Hume, W. (2006). Understanding service experience in non-profit performing
arts: Implications for operations and service management. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 304–324.IDEA Consult (2013). Survey on access to finance for cultural and creative sectors: Evaluate the financial gap of different
cultural and creative sectors to support the impact assessment of the creative Europe programme.Kaplan, S. (2011). Business models aren’t just for business. Harvard Business Review.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it! Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167–176.KEA (2006). The Economy of culture in Europe - http://www.keanet.eu/studies-and-contributions/economy-of-culture-
in-europe/. Accessed 20 May 2017.Linder, J., & Cantrell, S. (2000). Carved in Water: Changing Business Models fluidly. Accenture Institute for Strategic
Change Research Report, pp. 8–10.Lindgren, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2012). Business model innovation leadership. Journal of Multi Business Model Innovation
and Technology, 1(1), 53–69.MacMillan, I.C. (1989). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), pp. 391–395.MacMillan, I.C. (1991). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), pp. 161–165.MacMillan, I.C. (1994). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), pp. 85–89.MacMillan, I.C. & Stern, I. (1987). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 8(2), pp. 183–186.Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: in need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
23(1), pp. 19–25.Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313–323.Maurya, A. (2012) Running Lean. Create from Plan A to a Plan that works, O'Reilly, Sebastopol, USA.Munoz-Seca, B. (2011). A business model for cultural services. Joint design and production of a customer experience,
IESE Business School Working Paper WP- 941.Munoz-Seca, B., & Riverola, J. (2008). The new operational culture: The case of the theatre industry. London: Palgrave.Munoz-Seca, B., & Riverola, J. (2010). When Business Meets Culture. London: Palgrave.Neely, A. (2002). Business performance measurement: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Neely, A., & Adams, C. (2001). The performance prism perspective. Journal of Cost Management, 15(1), 7–15.Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), 6–13.Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business
success. London: Financial Times-Prentice Hall.Nesta (2014). The new art of finance – Making money work harder for the arts, London: Nesta.Nesta (2015). Digital Culture: How arts and cultural organizations in England use technology, London: Nesta.Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and
challengers. London: Wiley.Ostrower, F. (2004). Partnerships between large and small cultural organizations. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.Schiuma, G. (2011). The value of arts for business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schiuma, G., & Lerro, A. (2013). Fostering innovation through collaboration between cultural and creative industries and
traditional business sectors. Report presented at Creative Capital Conference "Fostering cross-innovation, 4thNovember, Vigevano, Italy.
Schiuma, G., & Lerro, A. (2014). Do cultural and creative industries (CCI) matter for innovation and value creation inknowledge-based business? Aims, forms and practices of collaboration in Italy. Istanbul: Knowledge Cities World Summit.
Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2013). Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda.International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 1340001.
Smagina, A., & Lindemanis, A. (2012). What creative industries have to offer to business? Creative partnerships andmutual benefits. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 71, 1839–1844.
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D., & Ricart, J. E. (2014). Business model innovation–state of the art and future challenges forthe field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.TEH - Trans Europe Halles (2015) Schiuma, A., Bogen, P., Lerro, A., eds. Creative business models: Insights into the business
models of cultural centers in trans Europe Halles, City of Lund – Creative Plot and Trans Europe Halles, Lund, Sweden.
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 12 of 13
Thorsby, D. (2008) From Cultural to Creative Industries: the Specific Characteristics of the Creative Industries, paperpresented at Troiseime Journees d’Economie de la Culture: Nouvelles Frontieres de l’Economie de la Culture, Paris,2–3 October.
Tikkanen, H., Lamberg, J. A., Parvinen, P., & Kallunki, J. P. (2005). Managerial cognition, action and the business model ofthe firm. Management Decision, 43(6), 789–809.
Timmers, P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, 8(2), 3–8.United Nations. (2008). Creative Economy Report 2008, UNCTAD secretariat and UNDP special unit for south-south. Geneva
and New York: Cooperation.Wirtz, B.W. (2000). Electronic Business. London: Springer-Verlag.Wirtz, B. W. (2001). Electronic business. London: Springer-Verlag.Wirtz, B. W. (2010). Business model management. Gabler: Wiesbaden.Wirtz, B.W. (2011). Business Model Management. Design-Instruments-Success Factors. Gabler: Wiesbaden.Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ulrich, S., & Gottel, V. (2016). Business models: Origins, development and future research. Long
Range Planning, 49, 36–54.Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67–82.Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). Business Model Innovation: Creating Value in Times of Change. IESE Business School Working
Paper No. 870.Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.
Schiuma and Lerro Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (2017) 3:13 Page 13 of 13
